Bill I wholeheartedly agree with the second two paragraphs of your post. However, when reading this I got caught on "simple and manageable" in regards to the 4x8. Personally, I think 4x8's are the least manageable layouts out there. Give yourself a measly 2 ft on each side and you're taking up 8x12, or what could amount to an entire room. Worst of all, you're (typically) chewing up a lot of your 4x8 in 180 degree curves at each end. So where does an 8x12 space leave the beginner. A spare room? Maybe if you have it. A corner of your basement? Possibly, but if it is unfinished you're dealing with poor lighting, dust and a generally un-fun place to work. Some sort of way to fold or raise a layout? Yes, but you just lost the simple part. Your post made me think about where I could put a 4x8 in my home, vs say a 2x12 shelf layout. The only spot for a 4x8 would be in the middle of our 12 x 15 family room off the guest suite in our finsihed basement. For the 2x12 I could probably find 3 spots, all of which would take up half of the space. And when finished correctly with a nice fascia and valence they would be much less intrusive. Obviously, both designs have overall advantages and disadvantages in terms of operation. One one hand, switching may seem boring to a beginner. On the other, watching trains do roundy rounds may not provide one with long term enjoyment.
Which reminds me.....one of Lance Mindheim's plans (his first Miami, FL-based CSX switching layout) could easily be looked on as a variation of the Inglenook design. One other in real life that I've seen was the section of former MKT line used by ConAgra in Sherman, TX for switching covered hoppers from storage track to elevators and vice versa. A DGNO local shoves in loads,to the yard, takes out empties, and then the plant switcher (a nice little ex-GTW SW9 which is run by remote control by an operator on the ground) then goes to work.
I wouldn't exactly call myself an elitist, but a 4x8 sheet of plywood tends to eat up an awful lot of room space, and doeosn't necessarily allow for easy access, especially in a small room. I would also point out that it could easily be the lack of access that can also be frustrating. However, given enough room to walk around such a layout, it could work. This is why such layouts as the HOG have been promoted- use the 4x8 as the benchwork top, cut 1-foot wide secr\tions, and viola- easy access, running trains around & around, the option for operations, fun factor, etc. And you can make the scenery as easy or as complex as you like. Just to point out, there are other and dare I saw better options out there to the 4x8- but hey, it's whatever floats your boat.
Unfortunately, I must take issue with a number of the points made in this post. First, they're painted with a broad brush in black and white, with little or no room for greys. Let's start with the fact that you do not have to stick with a 4x8 just to make it simple for a beginner. You can make a much more interesting and space-efficient shape that contains the same surface area, so it's not as if the beginner is faced with more layout to build; and, not being 4 x 8 offers the advantages of much easier access, possibly making construction simpler and more enjoyable. I've not forgotten my modeling roots, and the early days when the classic ping-pong table was Recommended Practice. It so happens my first layout was a 4x8, and I dearly wish someone had talked me out of it back then, for I might have gotten further than just covering the window screen with plaster. Your remark, "...there is no such thing as a layout that is ever finished..." is something of an urban legend in the modeling universe, IMO, along the lines of "there's a prototype for everything." I've brought a number of layouts to completion. Could I continue working on them, if I chose? Sure, but that doesn't mean they weren't done; further work would constitute revision, as opposed to completion. And while I may be in a minority, I doubt I'm alone. As for the model press promoting highly-polished "mega-layouts," there's a very simple reason this is the case: it sells magazines--as opposed to the benchwork of unfinished, more average layouts, which while more instructional aren't possessed of sufficient eye candy to dazzle today's more jaded readers. To suggest anything except a 4x8 is not simple or small enough for a beginner is to my mind patently untrue, and indeed there are a few issues 4x8s present that can be alleviated by taking a different approach. You are at liberty to call me an elitist if you like, but I do not believe that label fits. I've designed quite a lot of layouts for people, many of them beginners, and a few of the plans I created were 4x8s (just to prove I don't refuse to do them). But I will try to inspire beginners to get a little more creative, as much as I can without scaring them off. That's assuming one is not afraid to think outside the beginner's 4x8 box.
I think what we're dealing with here is a number of factors. As has been noted, not all switching layouts are "Timesavers," as that designation comes with specific design criteria, or built-in limitations if you will. As for the "starter" layout, I personally feel that the 4x8 as "standard" has as much to do with materials as anything else. A single sheet of plywood as the base for that first layout, hence 4x8. It's that simplicity, I believe, that created the idea. If necessary, nothing more complicated than a pair of sawhorses was needed for benchwork. And, particularly for HO, the sectional track being commonly available with 18" radius curves plays well with the 4' width.
Why all the dislike for the timesaver? I have seen them incorporated into layouts very well. My father had one, and he had a switch on the local control panel that could change it from the standard timesaver to a fully powered switching yard. This allowed for operation in the full layout or as a breakout section for the puzzle. I like the layout and enjoy the challenge - but I also don't spend my time working up prototypical train orders with cards and timetables that some people do for operations. I guess it comes down to personal preference; I like it, others don't. I was just really disappointed to see this thread - one specifically geared towards disparaging an aspect of the hobby... and one that continued to take pot-shots at others for their choices. Kudos to those that stayed above the fray...
One must make the distinction between Timesaver and switching puzzle. The former refers to a specific plan by John Allen; the latter does not. Points raised against the Timesaver as a layout or element of one are valid; it's not something seen in nature, but instead designed specifically for entertainment. There is nothing wrong with a Timesaver, per se, if your goal is solely having a puzzle to solve, whereas there are plenty of "switching puzzles" in real life one may incorporate into a layout without resorting to John Allen's little game. I don't think the disparagement is directed toward the Timesaver itself necessarily but rather the notion of incorporating one into a layout that otherwise supposedly represents real life practices.
would this statement be true: All timesaves are switching puzzles, not all switching puzzles are timesavers If a timesaver is considered a switching puzzle, the it should be included in switching puzzle options. If its not considered a switching puzzle, the what is it? I think that the case made against the timesaver that its not natural is lacking. There are a lot of things that are in modules that aren't found in nature - like the couplers we use. They are close, but they have been modified to make our hobby easier. If you want prototypical couplers, they are available, but most people eschew those in favor of ease of operations. If we are truly a slave to the not-found-in-nature paradigm, then how can we have compromises in areas for ease of operations? I believe that what it really comes down to is personal preference. And since its a personal preference, then why disparage a choice? I, personally, could never run realistic operations on any layout that I have. My dad had order cards and fast-clocks and assigned duties for people who came to operating sessions. That was great for him, and his friends, but it's not for me. The important part is that I didn't tell him that 'friends don't let friends run fast-clocks', partly because he was my dad, but mostly because its seems counterproductive to knock on something that people enjoy. I have suggested to several friends that an incorporated timesaver in their layouts might add some interesting points to them. One of them did, and he did what my dad did, which was to make the timesaver yard switchable, as in a timesaver and non-timesaver operating mode. It gives options - and options, I think are a good thing. Of course, this is just my opinion, and I could be wrong.
As previously stated, the Timesaver is no more than a fancy parlor game, similar to that puzzle with one piece missing that allows us to move suqares around to solve it. I can't think of a single real railroad that purposely laid their track to drive a switching crew nuts like a Timesaver does. To me, Timesavers are to good trackplanning like plastic is to wood. I am building a switching layout, but it is definintely NOT a Timesaver. Kadee couplers are a lot closer to prototype than Mantua loop couplers, or even horn-hook or Rapido couplers. Are they 100% prototype? No, not even the number 58 coupler in HO. Sergents couplers are closer to realistic looks in HO, and are starting to make inroads in the model railroad world. PLastic wheels are OK, but I'm tossing all plastic wheels in the trash when I replace them with metal wheelsets. Plastic Kadee wannabes suffer the same fate. The above statements are my opinions only, and are not meant to be thought of as hard-and-fast set-in-stone laws. If you want a Timesaver, go for it. If you want a 4x8 layout, more power to you. Personally, I wouldn't build a Timesaver for use in my layout. However, I had no problem starting this thread, and no problem sharing the information in this thread. Consider it an option, not an attack on what you percieve to be your preferred way of enjoying the hobby. Like you said, options are a good thing.
Apples and oranges. When speaking of the "Timesaver" with respect to the real world, it must be regarded as an operational design, as opposed to couplers, which are physical objects. If you're going to use couplers as a "modeling violation" of some sort, then you may as well reference everything else; nothing in scale modeling is a 100% accurate representation of real life. Everything is, at best, an approximation. But layout design is another thing; it's possible to faithfully reproduce the operational design of a real railroad (or a portion of one) in model form, since concepts can be scaled accurately, whereas objects often cannot. John Allen's Timesaver is an anomaly. There are more than enough "switching puzzles" in the real world to simulate on a layout, but the Timesaver does not represent anything in real life from the standpoint of operational design. Please do not make the mistake of thinking this is somehow bashing the Timesaver. If you enjoy brain teasers, go for it. If you want to incorporate one in your layout, by all means. However, if you are attempting to design a layout based on real world operations, it would be a mistake to include a Timesaver. These distinctions are subtle, to be sure, but one must understand them in order to avoid feeling admonished.
